Thanks for starting this conversation.
On 5/20/25 04:56, Pawel Kowalik wrote:
Hi,
<no hats>
Refreshing this thread, as the show of hands in the interim meeting [1] showed
no consensus for forbidding bare identifiers.
IMHO the changes done in -05 draft and then made deeper in -06 should be
reverted to reflect the current status quo of RFC 9083 until we have a clear
consensus to change it.
Except, the status quo of RFC 9083 is SHOULD not MAY.
The contention here is that we need to qualify going against the advice of the
SHOULD.
During the meeting, I think you proposed that going against the advice of the
SHOULD is only acceptable to IETF extensions because the IETF knows how to
manage its own namespace properly. This would bring back the concept of two
classes of extensions.
TBH, I am not against this if we can further qualify it by saying only the IETF
can do this if it is the only technically feasible way to define the extension
to meet its requirements.
As the exchange so far on the topic only involved few WG members it would be
good so see other pople speak up to have a wider perspective.
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2025-regext-01/materials/minutes-interim-2025-regext-01-202505081700-00
Agreed.
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
